My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/27/2016 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2016
>
06/27/2016 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 12:20:22 PM
Creation date
9/29/2016 11:18:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Workshop Meeting
Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Date
06/27/2016
Meeting Body
Board of County Commissioners
Subject
Fellsmere Roads
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY <br />In July 2003, the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Carter <br />Associates, Inc., a local Engineering firm, to work with staff in analyzing and <br />recommending to the Board a policy on improving and maintaining unmaintained roads in <br />developing areas throughout the County. The Study is complete and ready for <br />consideration. <br />Inventory — The Consultant and staff have inventoried 27.25 miles of unmaintained roads <br />as a representative sample of the estimated 142 miles of unmaintained roadway corridors <br />within the unincorporated area. The study inventories various road attributes such as right- <br />of-way width, road condition, drainage, potential number of dwelling units that will be <br />served by the road, projected future traffic count, etc. Based upon this inventory, the roads <br />were classified I through VI based upon potential future traffic count and cross-section. <br />Table 1 includes inventory data. <br />Alternative Designs — From the inventory data, it is obvious that right-of-way width is <br />deficient and road improvements are needed to provide a safe, two-way roadway. Based <br />upon existing and potential use of the road, six typical roadway sections are provided on <br />page 5 and 6 of the study. The typical section defines right-of-way needed, road width, <br />clear zones and drainage. Staff prefers paved roads as being the most economical in the <br />15-20 year life, especially if the projected traffic count is greater than 400 vehicles perday. <br />Paved roads also reduce silt -laden stormwater from entering the Indian River Lagoon. <br />Cost — Depending upon which typical section is selected based upon annual average traffic <br />count, the cost to improve the road ranges from $37 per lineal foot (unpaved road) to $100 <br />per lineal foot (paved road). <br />Rights -of -Way — Since many of the roads are not within County platted right-of-way, <br />property owners would be requested to donate needed right-of-way. In many cases, utility <br />poles, fences, etc., would have to be relocated. Staff assumes there would be no cost to <br />the County for this work. FS 298 Water Control Districts and Property Owner Associations <br />would be requested to allow use of existing rights-of-way for permanent roadways. <br />Interlocal agreements with drainage districts may be needed. Private subdivisions will <br />require the consent of 100% of their property owners. <br />Fundinq — Since many of the subject rights-of-way have not been owned and accepted by <br />the County for public road maintenance in the past, the standard petition paving 25% <br />County cost share for improvements would not apply. This has historically been the case <br />in private subdivisions such as Westside Subdivision, Country Walk Subdivision, etc. If the <br />County already owns the right-of-way by deed or plat (such as 84th Avenue, south of CR <br />510) then county funding could apply. The recommended funding options include 100% <br />Special Assessments for smaller benefited areas (less than 40acres) or Municipal Service <br />Benefit Units (MSBU) for benefited areas greater than 40 acres. For those roads currently <br />NAGAS\P\02-88E IRC ROAD INV\REPOR'r\UNMAINTA[NED ROAD STUDY -EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-IWD.DOC <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.